asokaandthefirstschism

Every
analysis of the schisms that I have read by modern scholars places the schisms
before Aśoka. Thus Bechert says, speaking of the Third Council: ‘After the
individual Sanghas (of whom many had been divided as a result of saṅghabheda, i.e. “splitting of the
Order” or “schism”) were reunited in this manner…’.[1]
But there is no mention of several Sanghas in the Third Council narrative.
Again, Bechert says: ‘…the first schism, which must be placed before Aśoka…’’.[2]
Prebish concurs: ‘Now we all know that a schism did take place around this
time.’[3]
And Cousins joins the chorus: ‘Even if it is now clear that the schism between
the Mahāsaṅghikas and the Sthaviravāda is not connected with the
Second Council, it cannot have been long after.’[4]

Nevertheless,
I think this event must be placed after Aśoka. Such a mass of authority cannot
be discarded lightly, and I should probably try to explain why I have come to
such different conclusions.

The
texts as we have them ascribe the schisms to one of three periods relative to
Aśoka: before (Dīpavaṁsa and Bhavya III), during (Vasumitra and probably the
Sarvāstivāda generally), or after (Śāriputraparipṛcchā). I have not seen an
explicit rationale for exactly why the root schism must be pre-Aśokan, but the
reasoning must go something like this.

Two
sources place the schisms before Aśoka. This includes the Sinhalese tradition,
which is more historically reliable. Vasumitra places events in the time of
Aśoka, but this is a short chronology text. The calendar date of the schism
according to Vasumitra is about 100
A.N. This roughly agrees in years with the Dīpavaṁsa
(100+ A.N.) and Bhavya III (137
A.N.). Vasumitra, therefore, has the date approximately
right, but following the tradition of his school, he thinks that this was the
reign of Aśoka. Apparently this tradition confuses the ‘Kāḷaśoka’ of the Second
Council with the famous ‘Dharmāśoka’.[5]
The Śāriputraparipṛcchā is closely related to this tradition, but in placing
the schism later has become confused in its chronology. The ‘Schism edicts’
indicate that either Aśoka was not fully aware of what was going on – which we
know is sometimes the case[6] –
or that he is referring to a mere party dispute among the Theravādins.

We
have already demonstrated some of the problems with this reasoning. The Dīpavaṁsa
should be entirely disregarded in this matter. Bhavya III is late, unsupported,
and polemical. Unfortunately, we know little of the Puggalavāda mythos, and so
cannot interpret what meaning this story had. But we may be confident that,
like all the other versions, it must have served the purpose of archaic
legitimation of the communal identity of the Puggalavāda.

Vasumitra
is speaking in the same tradition as the Mahāvibhāṣā, and although the
Mahāvibhāṣā does not mention the King’s name, we should see these sources as
representing the same mythos. The events happened under a pious Buddhist king
of Pāṭaliputta who sponsored the Kaśmīr mission. The purpose of the myth is to
associate the Sarvāstivādins of Kaśmīr with the root-Sthaviras in the time of
Aśoka. The calendar date is irrelevant to this mythos, and has merely been
inserted to give historical fixity to an event which, from Vasumitra’s point of
view, must have happened around that time.

For
similar reasons, we cannot discount the ‘Unity Edicts’ as being merely Aśoka’s
unawareness of what was happening in the Sangha. This argument pivots on an
insoluble dilemma. The very same texts that tell us the schism was Aśokan or
pre-Aśokan also assert Aśoka’s intimate involvement in the schisms. It is
Aśoka’s involvement, not the date, that is the key issue. The date is merely a
chronological reconciliation of the events with the general chronology of the
different schools. So are we to discard the critical element of Aśokan
involvement while accepting the incidental detail of the date? Of course it is
possible that Aśoka was not in fact fully aware of what was happening, but if
he was unaware, the sources are unreliable.

And
regarding the supposed ‘confusion’ of the Śāriputraparipṛcchā, we can only
assert that, aside from its obvious mythical nature and several textual
problems, it is not confused about its own chronology. The ascription of the
schism to a date after Aśoka is no accident, but is inherent in the logic of
the text. First it acknowledges the usual five ‘Masters of the Law’,
culminating with Upagupta, who is contemporary with Aśoka. Clearly there is no
schism so far, as the list of patriarchs is identical with the mainstream
(Mūla) Sarvāstivāda tradition. After Aśoka we are told of the persecutions
under Puṣyamitra; again, this is entirely in accord with the (Mūla)
Sarvāstivāda tradition.[7]
The events of the root schism itself are very different from the other
accounts, and so while the account of the ‘18 schools’ shares a common basis
with Vasumitra, we cannot infer that the account of the root-schism is merely a
confusion of Vasumitra.

Lamotte
says that this text is: ‘… so obscure that it allows for the most diverse
interpretations. After having narrated at length the persecution by the Śuṅga
Puṣyamitra, the text, going back to the past, speaks of events which took place
under a king whom it does not name, but who, from the evidence of other
parallel texts which we shall quote, can be none other than Aśoka the Maurya.’
(Lamotte, 1976, 172) But the text, in this respect at least, is not all all
obscure, nor does it hint at a flashback in time, but simply relates a series
of consecutive events. I agree with Lamotte that Fa-xiang’s version of events
in his postface to the Mahāsaṅghika Vinaya is related to the Śāriputraparipṛcchā,
but it seems to me that it is Fa-xiang who, writing at a much later date, has
got the chronology confused. He too starts with an evil king who persecutes the
bhikkhus; but this must be Puṣyamitra, as there are no known pre-Aśokan
persecutions. Then he goes on to relate the story of the king presiding over
the vote with tally-sticks; but to the Śāriputraparipṛcchā’s account he adds
the anachronistic detail that the king was Aśoka. (Lamotte, 1976, 173)

The
first calendar date the text gives us is 300 A.N. for the division of the root-Sthaviras
into Sarvāstivāda and Puggalavāda. Assuming the short chronology of the text,
this would be roughly 170 years after Aśoka’s death, which again makes perfect
sense of the internal chronology. The Mahāsaṅghika schisms, as is generally the
case, are said to be earlier than the Sthavira schisms, so they are dated 200 A.N. This brings them,
say, 70 years after Aśoka, around 170 B.C.E. Puṣyamitra died around 151 B.C.E.,
so our dates are about 20 years out. But given that the Śāriputraparipṛcchā
speaks in units no smaller than centuries, who’s to worry about a few decades
here and there? In any case, this relates to a later portion of the text. Thus
we can definitely conclude that the internal chronology of the relevant
portions of the Śāriputraparipṛcchā is not confused. It merely disagrees with
the chronology of other texts.

Can
we say anything else about the chronology of the Śāriputraparipṛcchā? One relevant
detail is the interference of the King. This apparently agrees with the Mahāsaṅghika
Vinaya. But the Mahāvihāravāsin Vinaya says nothing about royal interference,
despite the school’s approval, even celebration, of Aśoka’s interference as
establishing the essential model for Sangha-State relations, ensuring the very
survival of the Dhamma. Of course the later Mahāvihāravāsin texts assert that
Kāḷasoka sponsored the Second Council, and Ajātasattu sponsored the first, but
these are just back-readings to authorize Aśoka’s role. Thus such
justifications for Royal involvement, while not against the general spirit of
Indian legal procedures, must be post-Aśokan.[8]
Similarly, the use of tally-sticks to vote in an important procedure is not
supported by the Pali Vinaya, although we should not be surprised if the Mahāsaṅghika
Vinaya took a different perspective on this. Finally, we note the presence of
written texts.

One
of the most pervasive motivations in forming mythic texts is to seek archaic
authorization for contemporary events, hence the very common mythic tendency to
date formative events earlier rather than later. On prima facie expectations, we should expect that the version placing
the schism later would be more reasonable. In addition, the Śāriputraparipṛcchā
is less polemical than the other versions, indicating a healthier and more
realistic attitude towards such things, and consequently fewer motives to twist
events to its own perspective. We have also seen that this version is in
perfect accord with the epigraphic evidence and with the Mahāvihāra Vinaya
commentaries.